Update: Mr. Fan has posted a comment and a PS to his post.
First, the comment:
It's hard to understand how someone could conclude that agreeing with Wills' conclusions
means I agree with every argument he's made, but apparently someone did. To answer that
question, no - not every argument. Some of Wills points are valid, some are not. Why anyone
would expect me to agree with everything a Roman
Catholic author rights (sic) is mystifying.
Now if Mr Fan had not deleted my comment, his readers would have known that Mr. Fan's comment is a misrepresentation of what I had said. I never said there that Mr. Fan agreed with every point that Wills had written. I only asked Mr Fan if he agreed with certain statements that Wills had made in arriving at his conclusion. I formed no conclusions myself. Why anyone who claims that he is writing for the glory of God and portrays himself to his readership as a sincere defender contending for the faith would want to misrepresent what another wrote is equally mystifying. How exactly does a lie about what someone else says advance the glory of God in any way whatsoever?
Mr Fan also posted this PS:
P.S. I seriously doubt that any of Garry Wills' books (from his prize winning books, to his least well recognized books, and including this book) has been submitted for nihil obstat or imprimatur. Naturally, a book (like Why Priests?) that argues as one of its main points that there shouldn't be priests, is not a good candidate for either certification.
At least we know that Turretinfan reads this blog and has read this article specifically even if he will not admit it. That said, based on his comments, one must naturally come to the conclusion that Turretinfan does not have a clue how one would go about obtaining an imprimatur or a nihil obstat or why it is even important. One can obtain either without the Church agreeing with the positions advanced or contentions made. An imprimatur and a nihil obstat do not mean that the Church agrees with the contents of the book; only that there is nothing in the book that is contrary to the teachings of the Church.